Case Number 06099: Small Claims Court

After Stonewall

Every purchase you make through these Amazon links supports DVD Verdict's reviewing efforts. Thank you!

All Rise...

After reviewing Before Stonewall, Judge Brett Cullum revisits the Village to explore the aftermath.

The Charge

We've gotten to where we've nearly "them-ed" ourselves to death!
[…] This is America. There is no them, there is only us!—President
Bill Clinton in a 1992 campaign speech

"I don't know how much we changed them, but we changed
ourselves…"—Man remembering a sit-in during After
Stonewall

The Case

I reviewed Before Stonewall a
while back for this site, and it was a hard title for me to take on. It had a
lot of very moving stories about homosexual men and women fighting for their
very lives in a world that was not very aware of their existence. After
Stonewall is just as hard to talk about, because it shows the same community
fighting for rights, and, at one point, for compassion as the AIDS crisis mounts
and the government seems not to respond. The gay movement had altered the
American landscape, and forced its recognition by the country, only to end up
wracked and grieving in the wake of a disease that decimated its ranks. Social
histories are never easy things to document, because each person probably has a
thousand things to say about every major event. I feared After Stonewall
would suffer by tackling a community's history that was too broad once it hit
the mainstream. In a way it does falter under the weight of its massive
aspirations, but it also proves itself a worthy sequel to the 1985 documentary
that came before it.

I could try to summarize the plot or events of the piece, but it covers a
lot in ninety minutes. It starts off with the gay movement after the riots at
Stonewall in 1969. The two sides of the gay community fought successfully in the
early '70s to get the American Psychiatric Association to cease defining
homosexuality as a disease. Then, a division was seen as lesbians began to join
the Women's Rights movement, while gay men seemed to drift off into a haze of
bathhouse and disco steam. The two camps split into two separate cultures that
would not reunite until the specter of AIDS required them all to become
politically active together. After Stonewall paints the political
struggles in broad strokes as it chronicles many different movements within each
decade. The only problem is it has to generalize and move quickly to capture
everything. Fascinating topics often get two or three minutes, and then it's
time to hit the next one. Ellen Degeneres coming out barely merits a mention,
the red ribbon campaign gets nothing, and Clinton is backed into a corner in
about two minutes over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Events become sound
bites, and major struggles are rendered in montage.

The producers have assembled quite a remarkable set of panelists to provide
the talking heads for this documentary: Armistead Maupin, Craig Lucas, Rita Mae
Brown, Barney Frank, Larry Kramer, Elaine Noble, Harry Hay, and Susan Moir just
to name a few. Unlike Before Stonewall they have footage to go along with
the stories, since the history is more recent and they don't have to resort to
the old "just a story with a photo" approach its predecessor had to
take. They even use South Park clips now and then to punch things up a
bit. Nice touch. And who narrates? Why it's Melissa Etheridge, who sadly never
shows up on camera to talk about her own views. I would have loved to hear her
side of the '90s, considering she was a major celebrity who knew the President,
K.D. Lang, and Ellen rather personally. But I think the director of this piece
really wanted to have people from the grassroots level telling their stories,
like they did in Before Stonewall. That made sense for that piece, since
there essentially were no out and proud celebrities in that era, but for
After Stonewall I think it would make sense. Rock Hudson's death gave a
face to AIDS, Ellen coming out on network television was a watershed moment, and
RuPaul hitting MTV hard and fast as a black drag queen was remarkable. They do
chronicle the rise of the Metropolitan church, but miss the rise of the Gay
Press in many cities. Much effort is made to talk about San Francisco, but
there's nary a mention of West Hollywood?

Another problem with the documentary is its juggling of all the camps within
the movement. They seem very determined to represent gays and lesbians equally
in the whole movie, but I wondered—where were the transgenders, gay
Hispanics, and drag queens? What about bisexuals who also suffered miserably
during the AIDS crisis, and were often targeted by both sides as particularly
dangerous? A lot of times you will see the community referred to as
"GLBT," and there was certainly enough gay and lesbian footage with no
transgender or bisexual representation. It's a nitpick, but it's one that seems
like a pretty serious omission when you realize that half the community is not
shown at all. Again, the filmmakers are falling victim to the weight of their
subject. I think a miniseries was in order instead of a manageable eighty-eight
minutes.

But all gripes aside, it is still an effective and moving portrait. I
laughed and cried at all the right moments. And the gay community probably needs
this movie now more than ever. When it was made there was a lackadaisical spirit
heading into 2000 as if the community had won all of its major battles, and it
was time to throw a big circuit party and wait for the inevitable right to marry
to be bestowed. Well, politics are cyclical, and the backlash has begun anew.
Comments being made today remind me of the Anita Bryant scandal in the '70s that
After Stonewall chronicles so well. We're back to an age of
misinformation and intolerance, as words like "Christian" and
"Family Values" are thrown into the political arena at an alarming
rate, disguising intolerance and hatred. And it's nothing new. Many of the
interviewees in After Stonewall mourn the death of activism, but now it
seems they need to be passing the torch to the next generation. After
Stonewall correctly illustrates that for the GLBT community it has always
been a struggle, but it also celebrates its victories. In the end, After
Stonewall paints a more hopeful picture than Before Stonewall. It has
more to deal with, but it serves the same purpose. It's education about a
community that is often misunderstood even by its own members. It should be
mandatory viewing for people seeking history in its purest form. Stories of
importance told by people who were there, and saw all of it happen and felt the
effects. In that it succeeds marvelously well. It's an important piece of work
that needs to be seen.

As a DVD, it has little to offer technically. The picture is a grainy
fullscreen transfer that varies in quality with its sources; the audio is a
tinny stereo mix that never does more than just barely get the job done. Extras
are mainly just extended interviews with the panelists and the director. Still,
it rises above other DVDs with better transfers and stellar extras because it is
important in its own right. It's vital filmmaking for a group that needs its
message to be heard. Now more than ever.

Distinguishing Marks

• Interview with Director John Scagliotti
• Dorothy Allison and Jewelle Gomez on Vito Russo
• Armistead Maupin on PBS and the Christian Right
• Barney Frank on Post-Stonewallian Stories of Travel
• Jewelle Gomez on Poetry as a Galvanizing Force
• Dorothy Allison on Making an Alternative Family
• Previews